4 Jun
2011
4 Jun
'11
2:07 p.m.
And how many times does the database get corrupted? I've never run into it
and the conditions that would cause a corruption would equally screw any
other installer, since it would have to be a run that got interrupted
mid-install.
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Adam <geekdundee(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Next will you be suggesting for people to use MMC
snapins as opposed to
writing standalone applications, because it is shitty standalone
applications that do things and not MMC?
You can use WIX/MSI to write shitty installers too if I am not mistaken.
I've seen brilliant NSIS/InstallShield installers and shitty MSI installers.
And vice versa.
As an end-user I must say MSI also tends to piss me off, particularly when
the database gets corrupted and what not. Good concept though, but I
question the way it is implemented. I have written about what I think about
MSI in another mail so no need for me to repeat myself.
But what I am trying to suggest is that shitty installers will be shitty
installers. You can write shitty installers in
SuperDuperUltraInstallerLanguageSoGoodItIsGuaranteedToMakeOtherInstallersShitTheirPantsAndGoBankrupt
and they will still be shitty installers.
On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 23:49:26 +1000, Alex Ionescu <ionucu(a)videotron.ca>
wrote:
Oh, I do believe shitty software/installers do this.
Microsoft's technologies do not, however.
So use WIX/MSI, not NSI/InstallShield.
--
Best regards,
Alex Ionescu
On 2011-06-04, at 9:23 AM, Kamil Hornicek wrote:
I'm in charge of 40+ PCs running mostly XP at work. Believe me when I
--
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
tell you people do write their own code (or use
the available API
incorrectly) for installers or some online activation bullshit. I came
across several installers/apps that were unable to detect or use our proxy
(we also use wpad for proxy autodiscovery via dns) and I always had to
connect that PC directly to our gateway to make stuff install which is
annoying as hell. I am not making this up, pay me a visit if you think
otherwise.
K.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Alex Ionescu" <ionucu(a)videotron.ca>
To: "ReactOS Development List" <ros-dev(a)reactos.org>
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 8:20 PM
Subject: Re: [ros-dev] 1294 [dreimer] Fix clean for cmake trees. ...
Again all of this is irrelevant: since I think you are a Linux user, I
_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
can understand why you are confused.
On Windows, all HTTP communication is done by WinHTTP and/or WinINET,
nobody writes their own custom socket code.
WinHTTP/WinINET control the proxy settings for the machine. In fact, if
you use Google Chrome on Windows (or Safari) and go to the proxy/connection
settings, you will see "IE's" proxy connection dialog -- because these
settings/dialog are owned by the OS Library, not the individual
applications.
Therefore, the installer will use 100% the same settings as the web
browser, including the same protocol.
So, as I stated, if the browser can download foo.exe, so will the online
installer.
--
Best regards,
Alex Ionescu
On 2011-06-03, at 1:50 PM, Kamil Hornicek wrote:
whatever you use for downloading the installer has to be configured to
> connect throught the proxy and also to use its dns services for host name
> resolving. if the installer itself isn't aware of the need for proxy server
> (or is not able to connect through socks or whatever the proxy uses) it
> won't be usually able to resolve the hostname it's trying to connect to
> (depends on the exact network configuration). also the default route to the
> internet would be missing or direct outgoing connections would be blocked
> (which they usually are otherwise you wouldn't be forced to use the proxy
> server in the first place) so the traffic generated by the installer
> wouldn't have any means to reach its destination.
>
> I didn't want to derail the discussion and I apologize for that. I'll
> shut up next time.
>
> Kamil
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alex Ionescu" <ionucu(a)videotron.ca
> >
> To: "ReactOS Development List" <ros-dev(a)reactos.org>
> Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 7:03 PM
> Subject: Re: [ros-dev] 1294 [dreimer] Fix clean for cmake trees. ...
>
>
> Since online installers use HTTP, and the user got the installer off
>> HTTP, what would a proxy server change?
>>
>> --
>> Best regards,
>> Alex Ionescu
>>
>> On 2011-06-03, at 12:33 PM, Kamil Hornicek wrote:
>>
>> I didn't want to spam this discussion but I have to.. What every
>>> other software company also does is refusing to believe someone might be
>>> behind a proxy server. If you go this way, please make sure the installer
>>> doesn't need a direct connection. Also online installers are generally a
>>> major pain in the ass if you don't provide an offline installer too.
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: Alex Ionescu
>>> To: ReactOS Development List
>>> Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 5:56 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [ros-dev] 1294 [dreimer] Fix clean for cmake trees. ...
>>>
>>>
>>> Why separate installers for x64/ARM?
>>>
>>>
>>> Just do what every software company this side of the century does: a
>>> 400kb installer which lets you select the packages you want, and downloads
>>> them.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Best regards,
>>> Alex Ionescu
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2011-06-03, at 11:38 AM, Zachary Gorden wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Spoke with Amine and Daniel. I've agreed to the lesser evil of
>>> bundling the FULL cmake. Reasons are if we want the BE to be flexible
>>> enough to be used for more than just building ROS, we can't gimp cmake
with
>>> the belief that no one will need the things we didn't include. This is
again
>>> on Windows. I remain uninvolved with decisions about the Linux BE.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 10:34 AM, Colin Finck <colin(a)reactos.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Timo Kreuzer <timo.kreuzer(a)web.de> wrote:
>>>
>>> My vote on this:
>>> CMake: bundle it, optional on installation
>>> x64/arm: create individual installers
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> * CMake: bundle it, go for the (minimal) version without an
>>> installer. It's nothing "exotic" to install after all, just put
it together
>>> with the other utilities in RosBE.
>>>
>>> * x64/arm: If build tool sizes are staying like this, create
>>> individual installers. Just for testing, I'll try an x86/x64 multilib
build
>>> of Binutils and GCC though, would be nice to know how much smaller it is
>>> compared to separate x86 and x64 compilers.
>>>
>>> So in general, I agree with Timo :-)
>>>
>>>
>>> - Colin
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ros-dev mailing list
>>> Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ros-dev mailing list
>>> Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ros-dev mailing list
>>> Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ros-dev mailing list
>>> Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ros-dev mailing list
>> Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ros-dev mailing list
> Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev